Amending the Constitution

Recent discussions on the need to amend the 1987 Constitution has seemingly become contentious and, at times, become a basis for personal attacks. The reason is that certain sectors and political interest groups have already started debating specific constitutional amendments.

I believe that there must be a public appreciation that amending the constitution is an integral part of the democratic process. Also a constitution is not the principal bulwark of democracy. It is still the vigilance and the willingness of people to actively defend their freedoms that will remain as the primary guarantor of our freedoms.

Marcos ruled the Philippines with a constitution and had the most repressive dictatorship in Philippine history. Corazon Aquino ruled as president for a year without a constitution and became the icon of democracy here and around the world.

Thailand was once the economic and political model in Southeast Asia. But recently, there was a military takeover and its constitution was set aside to allow the armed forces to run the country. There is a new government and a prime minister who is the army chief. The popularly and democratically elected government has been dispersed and its leaders either arrested or exiled. This happened  because the Thai people have not staged any national protest movement. A new constitution will not restore democracy to Thailand. Only People Power can do that if they want to restore democracy peacefully.

I believe in a constitutional democracy but I see a codified constitution serving as a framework for the laws of the land which is the sole prerogative of the legislature. All constitutions provide for amendments because of the realization that the need will arise.

The United States Constitution has been amended 27 times.  It was ratified in 1787. Less than two years later, ten amendments were introduced in order to clarify the Bill of Rights.

Several Filipino citizens and other groups have cited the need to amend our present Constitution. But let me cite an American personality so that I will not be accused again of selecting who to cite for personal motives.

Thomas Jefferson drafted the US Declaration of Independence and became the third president of his nation. Here are some of his statements about the need to amend their constitution. They are still so relevant to our discussions today.

“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment...

 No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the course of time, the imperfections of a written constitution will become apparent. Moreover, passage of time will bring changes in society which a constitution must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for the nation...Time and changes in the conditions and constitution of society may require occasional and corresponding modifications...

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions...But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind . As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance and keep pace with the times...

The idea that institutions established for the use of the nation cannot be touched nor modified even to make them answer their end because of rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public may perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch but is most absurd against the nation itself. Yet our lawyers and priests generally inculcate this doctrine and suppose that preceding generations held the earth more freely than we do, had a right to impose laws on us unalterable by ourselves, and that we in like manner can make laws and impose burdens on future generations which they will have no right to alter; in fine that the earth belongs to the dead and not the living.”

Debates on amending the US Constitution is a fairly regular occurrence. For example, today there is a lot of debate on the Second Amendment which gives Americans the “right to bear arms.” But there have been other issues 40 years ago when they were asked what they would change in their Constitution if they could, , President Carter and President Ford differed on one specific issue.

President Ford said: “ I would favour the repeal of the 22nd Amendment that imposes a two-term limitation on a President’s service.” On the other hand, President Carter said: “ [One of the] changes I would like to see in the Constitution: Elect a President for one six- or seven-year term.”

In the Philippines, the business sector has been very vocal in its support of Speaker Belmonte’s proposal for Charter change. Specifically, the Makati Business Club {MBC} and the Management Association of the Philippines {MAP} believe it is time to open up certain sectors of the economy to foreign ownership.

MBC president, Ramon del Rosario  Jr. explains: “ Now is the time to address the restrictive provisions in our economy because we are at what we call a “sweet spot” where there are so many positive things happening in our country. Our economic growth and fiscal stability – all these things are happening in our favour.” He cited Japan as one specific country that was looking at the Philippines as the alternative site for Japanese companies wanting to transfer their manufacturing hubs from China in light of their worsening territorial conflicts with the Beijing government.

This is a good example of the need to amend the Constitution as the environment changes. When the 1987 Constitution was ratified, the Philippines had just emerged from a Marcos regime that had economically plundered the country aside from persecuting all forms of dissent. The Philippines was the second wealthiest country, next only to Japan, at the beginning of the beginning of the 21- year economically destructive Marcos rule. At the end of this regime, the Philippines was the “sick man of Asia.”

Today, after only four years of the P-Noy presidency, the World Bank president during the World Economic Forum has declared the Philippines as the next “Economic Miracle” of Asia and even the world. The country’s growth remains to be the second fastest in Asia, next only to China. The economic environment today is very different from the conditions during the time the 1987 Constitution was drafted.

In so many ways, the Philippine environment has undergone drastic changes in the last 28 years. The world has changed. Technology has changed people’s lives. It is hard to believe that during the People Power Revolution, there was no social media – no cell phones, no internet, no twitter. There were American bases here and China was not an immediate threat. I could go on and on.

In a changing world we need to make sure that the Constitution remains a living document. Change, however, must have leaders, committed to the rule of law, and a vigilant people  that will ensure that the Constitution remains a tool for the realization of economic opportunity and social justice for all Filipinos.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]